Kalam argument
From PhiloWiki
The Kalam argument states:
- Everything with a beginning has a cause.
- The universe has a beginning.
- Therefore it has a cause
Is this a rigorous argument? If not, how could the universe have come from nothing?
[edit]
Christian views
- Strobel states that the universe had a first cause [Case for a Creator, pp 74, 97].
- Resources are needed. Feel free to find and add resources.
[edit]
Secular views
- "Once it is recognized that something didn't need a cause, isn't it just as likely the universe didn't need a cause as God not needing a cause? Moreland does make an attempt to answer this. He does recognize that his arguments would seem to imply that God needs a cause. His response is that things with beginnings must have a cause, but since God had no beginning, He needs no cause. But that begs the question, why would things without a beginning not need a cause? Moreland does attempt to answer this too. He employs use of Saint Thomas Aquinas' concept of the Necessary Being. According to Aquinas (and Moreland) there had to be something that owes its existence only to itself. Therefore this Necessary Being needs no cause and actually could not have not existed. The concept of the Necessary Being has been refuted by many philosophers, notably including David Hume. The problems with the argument are numerous. For example, it would be just as easy to define the universe as a “necessary universe” and say that it could not have not existed. It is the same argument, with the same validity. (Actually, calling the universe a "necessary universe" is actually a better argument than calling God a "necessary Being" because we at least know the universe exists...)"
